Engaging Immigrants in Early Psychosis Treatment: A Clinical Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study compared engagement in treatment and medication adherence of immigrants and nonimmigrants in early intervention services for persons with first-episode psychosis. METHODS: This two-year longitudinal prospective cohort study recruited patients with first-episode psychosis who were entering early intervention services in Montreal, Canada (N=223). Data on sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms, and social functioning were collected annually. RESULTS: At two years, immigrants had more than three times the odds of attrition than nonimmigrants after the analysis controlled for potential confounding factors (first-generation immigrants: odds ratio [OR]=3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01-9.57, p=.049); second-generation immigrants: OR=3.65, CI=1.07-12.50, p=.039). Medication adherence was similar among those who remained in the programs. CONCLUSIONS: During the two years after entering a program for first-episode psychosis, immigrants were more likely than nonimmigrants to disengage from treatment. Further research is warranted to understand this phenomenon and to improve the ability of services to engage immigrants with first-episode psychosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".